Case 1:25-cv-14723 Document 10-1 Filed 08/19/25 Page 19 of 34 PageID: 91
Metzger , 832 F. App’x 102, 104 (3d Cir. 2020)); see also Nken v. Holder , 556 U.S. 418, 435
(2009). The movant must make the same showing to obtain a temporary restraining order. See
Jurista v. Amerinox Processing, Inc. , 492 B.R. 707, 777 n.53 (D.N.J. 2013) (“Applications for
temporary restraining orders are governed by the same standards as motions for preliminary
injunctions.”).
I.
ROBINHOOD IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS.
This Court has already held that Kalshi is likely to succeed in establishing that the
CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction over sports-related event contracts traded on Kalshi’s designated
contract market preempts the New Jersey Constitution and Sports Wagering Act. KalshiEx ,
2025 WL 1218313, at *4-6. 2 The same event contract products are at issue here as were at issue
in KalshiEx , and the same result should follow: transactions involving sports-related event
contracts traded on Kalshi’s designated contract market—regardless of whether the trade orders
come directly to Kalshi from Kalshi’s customers or indirectly to Kalshi from Robinhood’s
2 The Court was in good company when it did so; numerous other courts have found that the CEA’s grant of exclusive jurisdiction to the CFTC is broad and preempts other regulatory schemes, including both state and other federal statutes. See, e.g. , Hunter v. Fed. Energy Reg. Comm’n , 711 F.3d 155, 158-59 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission lacked jurisdiction in light of CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction); KalshiEx, LLC v. Hendrick , No. 25- 00575, 2025 WL 1073495, at *5 (D. Nev. Apr. 9, 2025) (hereinafter “ KalshiEx (D. Nev.) ”) (preemption by CEA and CFTC regulations of Nevada gambling laws); Witzel v. Chartered Sys. Corp. of N.Y., Ltd. , 490 F. Supp. 343, 347-48 (D. Minn. 1980) (preemption by CEA and CFTC regulations of Minnesota Securities Act); Hofmayer v. Dean Witter & Co. , 459 F. Supp. 733, 737 (N.D. Cal. 1978) (claims arising under federal and state securities statutes barred in light of CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction); Jones v. B.C. Christopher & Co. , 466 F. Supp. 213, 220 (D. Kan. 1979) (recognizing that “[i]t is now established . . . that the SEC and other federal agencies are ‘stripped’ of authority to regulate commodities transactions and that state regulatory agencies are likewise preempted by the ‘exclusive jurisdiction’ of the CFTC” (internal citations omitted)); Bartels v. Int’l Commodities Corp. , 435 F. Supp. 865, 869 (D. Conn. 1977) (with “its own sphere,” the CFTC displaced the Securities and Exchange Commission’s previous authority over commodity options trading).
12
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs